Was the universe 1 or 2 dimensional at one time?

Was the Early Universe One-Dimensional? | What Would Life Be Like In
1-D? | Vanishing Dimensions Theory | High Energy Physics & Cosmology |
Space.com
"A refreshingly simple new idea has emerged in the complicated world of
high energy physics. It proposes that the early universe was a
one-dimensional line. Not an exploding sphere, not a chaotic ball of
fire. Just a simple line of pure energy.

Over time, as that line grew, it crisscrossed and intersected itself
more and more, gradually forming a tightly interwoven fabric, which, at
large distances, appeared as a 2-D plane. More time passed and the 2-D
universe expanded and twisted about, eventually creating a web — the 3-D
universe we see today.

This concept, called "vanishing dimensions" to describe what happens the
farther one looks back in time, has been gaining traction within the
high energy physics community in recent months. "
http://www.space.com/11470-universe-...cs-theory.html

On Apr 23, 4:52*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Was the Early Universe One-Dimensional? | What Would Life Be Like In
1-D? | Vanishing Dimensions Theory | High Energy Physics & Cosmology |
Space.com
"A refreshingly simple new idea has emerged in the complicated world of
high energy physics. It proposes that the early universe was a
one-dimensional line. Not an exploding sphere, not a chaotic ball of
fire. Just a simple line of pure energy.

Over time, as that line grew, it crisscrossed and intersected itself
more and more, gradually forming a tightly interwoven fabric, which, at
large distances, appeared as a 2-D plane. More time passed and the 2-D
universe expanded and twisted about, eventually creating a web the 3-D
universe we see today.

This concept, called "vanishing dimensions" to describe what happens the
farther one looks back in time, has been gaining traction within the
high energy physics community in recent months. "http://www.space.com/11470-universe-birth-1-dimension-physics-theory....

The article says it is a "refreshingly simple new idea" but a similar
idea was also in one of Brian Greene's popularising books about string
theory: The Elegant Universe (2000), pages 359-360 in my copy, in a
section named "Why Three". He cited Brandenburger and Vafa for the
idea.

Brandenburger and Vafa suggested that strings confine or trap hidden
dimensions and that at one time our 3D space was so trapped. More
hidden dimensions still remain trapped. The mechanism for release was
strings meeting anti-strings. The windings of anti-strings are
opposite to those of strings so that, when they meet, the windings
unfurl one another and so release the space dimensions. The new idea
may be different though?

On 4/23/2011 7:32 AM, ben6993 wrote:
The article says it is a "refreshingly simple new idea" but a similar
idea was also in one of Brian Greene's popularising books about string
theory: The Elegant Universe (2000), pages 359-360 in my copy, in a
section named "Why Three". He cited Brandenburger and Vafa for the
idea.

Brandenburger and Vafa suggested that strings confine or trap hidden
dimensions and that at one time our 3D space was so trapped. More
hidden dimensions still remain trapped. The mechanism for release was
strings meeting anti-strings. The windings of anti-strings are
opposite to those of strings so that, when they meet, the windings
unfurl one another and so release the space dimensions. The new idea
may be different though?

Yes, it's different because it approaches the creation of the dimensions
in the opposite direction from Superstrings. Superstrings proposes that
the Universe started out as 11 dimensions, where only 3+1 dimensions
emerged out of their primordial entrapment. Basically they're saying
there are already supposed to be more dimensions, and the universe fell
back down to the 3+1 configuration we see today. This new theory is
suggesting we built up from one dimension towards the 3+1 we see today.

Yousuf Khan